Virtual lighting designs are a critical component of the lighting design process. Generally speaking, the lighting design process begins when a lighting designer or other person surveys an actual target area and models it in a 2D or 3D space. The location of each lighting fixture to be installed is virtually mapped out relative the virtual target area. Some state-of-the-art lighting design software programs have the ability to virtually map out not only the lighting fixtures themselves in space, but also visors, adjustable armatures, and other features (if any). Some state-of-the-art lighting design software programs have the ability to model objects (e.g., furniture, changes in topography) in the virtual space surrounding the virtual target area. These virtual representations match well to their actual counterparts; not so in the case of mapping out and virtually representing the light projected from the virtual lighting fixtures, nor in modifying said virtual representations of light when interacting with said objects in the virtual space.
In most state-of-the-art lighting design software, photometry is measured for the actual lighting fixture and loaded into the software program. In the virtual space previously mentioned, a lighting designer or other person uses the measured photometry in combination with the relative height of the virtual pole, aiming angle of the virtual fixture, and relative location of the virtual target area to determine virtual light levels at the virtual field of play (which should match closely to actual light levels at the actual field of play once the actual lighting system is installed); a similar process is used for indoor lighting applications. For some lighting design software, there is limited ability to render light within a 3D space; often, only a 2D layout of the field of play with numbers overlaid in a grid pattern which indicate relevant photometric values (usually in horizontal footcandles) is possible.
Even those state-of-the-art lighting design software programs which offer some 3D evaluation of virtual lighting designs suffer from a major defect—light projected from the virtual fixtures more or less exists in a vacuum, and is typically only concerned with what is happening at a point at the virtual target area. For example, if an object (e.g., a modeled couch) is proximate the 2D virtual target area (e.g., the target area is the floor of an office and the virtual couch is on the virtual floor of the office), some state-of-the-art lighting design software programs recognize this as an obstruction and can modify the virtual representation of light accordingly (e.g., show a decrease in horizontal footcandles (fc) on the grid where the object exists); the same can be said for an object suspended in space (e.g., a virtual suspended lighting fixture above the virtual floor of the office). However, this analysis is static—only reflecting what is happening point-by-point on the 2D plane of the target area. State-of-the-art lighting design software lacks the ability to evaluate what is happening elsewhere in the 3D space (e.g., how a line of sight might be impacted by said suspended lighting fixture), and has no options for interactivity (e.g., no ability for a user to manipulate said suspended lighting fixture and evaluate not only virtual light levels on the floor of the office, but evaluate how said line of sight is changed). This is but one example of how state-of-the-art virtual lighting design software programs are inadequate in producing accurate virtual representations of light.
Thus, even state-of-the-art lighting design software programs which have some ability to model a 3D space (rather than just a 2D plane), and some ability to model objects in said 3D space, still do not have the ability to take into account the perspective of spectators, players, office personnel, and the like each of which have their own lighting needs which are desired to be met—regardless of whether numbers in the model indicate actual light levels are adequate. Stated differently, while most (if not all) state-of-the-art lighting design software programs are adapted to evaluate well established lighting needs based on well established metrics and relatively objective standards—evaluating such things as aiming angles, spill light, and max/min light levels—none are adapted to evaluate nuanced lighting needs based on subjective input and/or emerging standards/science—evaluating such things as playability, glare, and gaps in lighting coverage (i.e., gaps in a 3D space and not just at a point on a 2D plane).
Consider aerial sports such as baseball. Even if a state-of-the-art lighting design software program was able to model the field, the lighting fixtures, and the space above the field, these software programs, at best, can only evaluate 2D “slices” of virtual light taken repeatedly across the 3D modeled space from a single vantage point (see, for example, FIGS. 3A-E of U.S. Pat. No. 8,523,397 the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein); and only in terms of meter readings or numeric values. A true 3D evaluation of the virtual representation of light is not possible, and 2D evaluation is not photorealistic (i.e., does not provide a realistic representation of light). Without true 3D evaluation of a virtual lighting design it is nearly impossible to adequately identify where there are gaps in lighting that, among other things, can cause dark spots where the ball is “lost” in flight—a problem for players—and without photorealistic representations of light a consumer or other user has no meaningful feedback, no visual cue as to what the light will actually look like in the installed system.
Consider too that an object in flight (e.g., said baseball) is seen from many different player positions, and that the ball can also be “lost”—even with adequate downlight (i.e., light directed primarily towards a plane (e.g., a playing field))—if the ball is not adequately illuminated over its entire flight, and is another issue for players. This is, of course, in addition to the issue of perceived glare; namely, when a player, spectator, or other person perceives an uncomfortable or disabling brightness when looking at a light source (regardless of whether an object is passing by). Even with the emergence of lighting design software which is adapted to provide photorealistic representations of light and provide a visual cue of when “too much” virtual light has been added—such as that discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 8,928,662 incorporated by reference herein in its entirety—and even with the emergence of real-time evaluation of potential glare sources (albeit actual light sources and not virtual ones)—such as that described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/724,451, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,786,251 on Oct. 10, 2017, incorporated by reference herein in its entirety—even those lighting design software programs lack the tools to address an object in flight and situations where the object might be “lost”.
Playability, glare, and gaps in lighting coverage are of genuine concern in an installed lighting system (particularly sports lighting systems), and state-of-the-art virtual lighting designs tools fail to adequately model and evaluate them, and thus fail to fully achieve the stated objectives of (i) providing a visualization of what an actual lighting system might look like at a target area, and (ii) at least preliminarily vetting aiming angles, spill light, max/min light levels, and numerous other needs which are desired or required to be met.
Thus, there is room for improvement in the art.